NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Convention Against Military Aggression

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3126
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Ice States » Tue Feb 27, 2024 2:38 pm

Bump.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Midlona
Attaché
 
Posts: 74
Founded: Jan 20, 2023
New York Times Democracy

Postby Midlona » Wed Feb 28, 2024 9:33 pm

The Ice States wrote:1. Acts of war: For the purposes of this resolution, an act of war against a nation shall mean any act involving the wilful use of armed force to prevent that nation from exercising full sovereignty over its jurisdiction.


"Does the author nation consider a declaration-of-war by one nation against another to be an 'act of war' under this definition?" The Midlonan Ambassador asks.

"Midlona fears the current language would classify a war declaration as a Section 2 threat, absent a 'willful use of armed force.'" She adds.

The Ice States wrote:2. Aggression: Neither the World Assembly nor any member nation may perform, threaten, or assist any act of war against another member nation, subject only to Section 3.


"Midlona supports this resolution, pending assurance that a declaration-of-war satisfies the 'act of war' definition."

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3126
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Ice States » Fri Mar 01, 2024 2:20 pm

Midlona wrote:
The Ice States wrote:1. Acts of war: For the purposes of this resolution, an act of war against a nation shall mean any act involving the wilful use of armed force to prevent that nation from exercising full sovereignty over its jurisdiction.


"Does the author nation consider a declaration-of-war by one nation against another to be an 'act of war' under this definition?" The Midlonan Ambassador asks.

"Midlona fears the current language would classify a war declaration as a Section 2 threat, absent a 'willful use of armed force.'" She adds.

The Ice States wrote:2. Aggression: Neither the World Assembly nor any member nation may perform, threaten, or assist any act of war against another member nation, subject only to Section 3.


"Midlona supports this resolution, pending assurance that a declaration-of-war satisfies the 'act of war' definition."

"We do not believe that an act of war should include the act of threatening one, noting that self-defense is exempted under Section 3a. Could you give an example of where a declaration of war not being an act of war would cause problems?"

"On another note, this has been marked on last call; once this matter is addressed we intend to submit."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Midlona
Attaché
 
Posts: 74
Founded: Jan 20, 2023
New York Times Democracy

Postby Midlona » Fri Mar 01, 2024 2:59 pm

"Beyond the problem of defying logic and plain language (that a declaration of war would not be an act of war), a nation which has had war declared on it should not have to wait until the declaring nation actualizes their declaration (which is more than a threat in our reading) with hostile force, lest the defending nation be casted as causing wars under the resolution's scheme." The Midlonan Ambassador says slowly, confused as to how this information could anything less than obvious.
Last edited by Midlona on Fri Mar 01, 2024 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3126
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Ice States » Fri Mar 01, 2024 6:08 pm

Midlona wrote:"Beyond the problem of defying logic and plain language (that a declaration of war would not be an act of war), a nation which has had war declared on it should not have to wait until the declaring nation actualizes their declaration (which is more than a threat in our reading) with hostile force, lest the defending nation be casted as causing wars under the resolution's scheme." The Midlonan Ambassador says slowly, confused as to how this information could anything less than obvious.

"Thank you for the explanation, we have amended the definition to include declaration of war as an act of war. With that said, consider submission imminent."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Republic of Mesque
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 115
Founded: May 01, 2020
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Republic of Mesque » Fri Mar 01, 2024 7:31 pm

The WA is finally getting to the point of staging special military operations based on flawless definitions of aggression under the term “act of war”.
The Ice States and its bureaucrats, as per usual, have no qualms about their desire to send WA military personnel to be butchered, through future resolutions, under pretentious definitions of what constitutes or not aggression.
Effectively, this is what you always wanted: a chance for paramilitary death squads that get to spill rivers of blood to do the WA’s bidding - naively or hypocritically under the belief that it is banning wars and promoting world peace. When the unnamed WA bureaucratic lunatics have trouble deciding where an unequivocal first “act of war” lies, surely The Ice States diplomats will be the first to give their sentence. Will they make good judgement, then? Doubtful.
Great job, this is an amazing path to go through!
Last edited by Republic of Mesque on Fri Mar 01, 2024 7:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3126
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Ice States » Fri Mar 01, 2024 7:33 pm

Republic of Mesque wrote:The WA is finally getting to the point of staging special military operations based on flawless definitions of aggression under the term “act of war”.
The Ice States and its bureaucrats, as per usual, have no qualms about their desire to send WA military personnel to be butchered, through future resolutions, under pretentious definitions of what constitutes or not aggression.
Effectively, this is what you always wanted: a chance for paramilitary death squads that get to spill rivers of blood to do the WA’s bidding - naively or hypocritically under the belief that it is banning wars and promoting world peace. When the unnamed WA bureaucratic lunatics have trouble deciding where an unequivocal first “act of war” lies, surely The Ice States diplomats will be the first to give their sentence. Will they make good judgement, then? Doubtful.
Great job, this is an amazing path to go through!

Have you read the very last sentence?
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Republic of Mesque
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 115
Founded: May 01, 2020
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Republic of Mesque » Fri Mar 01, 2024 7:34 pm

The Ice States wrote:
Republic of Mesque wrote:The WA is finally getting to the point of staging special military operations based on flawless definitions of aggression under the term “act of war”.
The Ice States and its bureaucrats, as per usual, have no qualms about their desire to send WA military personnel to be butchered, through future resolutions, under pretentious definitions of what constitutes or not aggression.
Effectively, this is what you always wanted: a chance for paramilitary death squads that get to spill rivers of blood to do the WA’s bidding - naively or hypocritically under the belief that it is banning wars and promoting world peace. When the unnamed WA bureaucratic lunatics have trouble deciding where an unequivocal first “act of war” lies, surely The Ice States diplomats will be the first to give their sentence. Will they make good judgement, then? Doubtful.
Great job, this is an amazing path to go through!

Have you read the very last sentence?

While this resolution does not allow for direct intervention, surely you have the follow-up prepared. No?

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3126
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Ice States » Fri Mar 01, 2024 7:37 pm

Republic of Mesque wrote:
The Ice States wrote:Have you read the very last sentence?

While this resolution does not allow for direct intervention, surely you have the follow-up prepared. No?

I have no current draft which would establish military intervention to enforce this; nor do I intend to write such a resolution. Even if I were, you should judge this based on its own merits and not based on a hypothetical future proposal.
Last edited by The Ice States on Fri Mar 01, 2024 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Republic of Mesque
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 115
Founded: May 01, 2020
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Republic of Mesque » Fri Mar 01, 2024 7:41 pm

The Ice States wrote:
Republic of Mesque wrote:While this resolution does not allow for direct intervention, surely you have the follow-up prepared. No?

I have no current draft which would establish military intervention to enforce this; nor do I intend to write such a resolution. Even if I were, you should judge this based on its own merits and not based on a hypothetical future proposal.

We judge based on the history and insistence about this topic.
While you can claim not wishing to pass military intervention, your resolution enables any of your pro-war faction’s proxies to do so.
We have treaded quite a path getting here. To claim that this shouldn’t be judged based on future resolutions doesn’t and shouldn’t make any sense.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3126
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Ice States » Fri Mar 01, 2024 7:45 pm

How does it "enable" this "pro-war faction"? It doesn't even mention a WA army, except to say that it does not have one enforcing it.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Republic of Mesque
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 115
Founded: May 01, 2020
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Republic of Mesque » Fri Mar 01, 2024 7:58 pm

The Ice States wrote:How does it "enable" this "pro-war faction"? It doesn't even mention a WA army, except to say that it does not have one enforcing it.

Here are the main questions:
Doesn’t 3a enable the WA and WA nations to provide “assistance to” “armed action” “to defend against an act of war”? The issue being… which WA bureaucrats get to decide who is defending and who is attacking? Sometimes, it isn’t so clear.
Is it desirable to leave this open for interpretation when the aggressor is not crystal clear? Doesn’t this clause then enable biases towards nations, which could be exploited in future resolutions?

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3126
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Ice States » Fri Mar 01, 2024 8:01 pm

Republic of Mesque wrote:
The Ice States wrote:How does it "enable" this "pro-war faction"? It doesn't even mention a WA army, except to say that it does not have one enforcing it.

Here are the main questions:
Doesn’t 3a enable the WA and WA nations to provide “assistance to” “armed action” “to defend against an act of war”? The issue being… which WA bureaucrats get to decide who is defending and who is attacking? Sometimes, it isn’t so clear.
Is it desirable to leave this open for interpretation when the aggressor is not crystal clear? Doesn’t this clause then enable biases towards nations, which could be exploited in future resolutions?

It does not ban it; that it is all it does. The WA has just as much ability to do this as it does in the status quo.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3126
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Ice States » Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:35 pm

As a note, I had discussed some of the details of this with Tinfect just now and have decided to withdraw so as to allow a redrafting process to address some concerns raised by them; as a result, amendments have been effected particularly to Section 3a and parts of Section 2. Comments are still welcome.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Kenmoria
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 7925
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Kenmoria » Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:39 pm

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “The third clause proper should end in a colon, rather than a full stop, so as to better flow into the subclauses. Additionally, in 3(a), ‘which’, where it appears prior to ‘would violate this resolution’, should be removed; it is currently not grammatically correct. I remain in full support of this measure.”
Hello! I’m a GAer and NS Roleplayer from the United Kingdom.
My pronouns are he/him.
Any posts that I make as GenSec will be clearly marked as such and OOC. Conversely, my IC ambassador in the General Assembly is Ambassador Fortier. I’m always happy to discuss ideas about proposals, particularly if grammar or wording are in issue. I am also Executive Deputy Minister for the WA Ministry of TNP.
Kenmoria is an illiberal yet democratic nation pursuing the goals of communism in a semi-effective fashion. It has a very broad diplomatic presence despite being economically developing, mainly to seek help in recovering from the effect of a recent civil war. Read the factbook here for more information; perhaps, I will eventually finish it.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3126
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Ice States » Sat Mar 16, 2024 2:05 pm

Kenmoria wrote:Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “The third clause proper should end in a colon, rather than a full stop, so as to better flow into the subclauses. Additionally, in 3(a), ‘which’, where it appears prior to ‘would violate this resolution’, should be removed; it is currently not grammatically correct. I remain in full support of this measure.”

"Thank you Ambassador, we have amended the draft to address these issues."

~Claudia Lindner,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3126
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Ice States » Sun Mar 17, 2024 6:05 pm

Any more comments?
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1658
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Fachumonn » Sun Mar 17, 2024 6:14 pm

The Ice States wrote:Any more comments?

Support as I don't feel the need to critique everything at this hour.
GA Authorship Leaderboard | Guide to Campaigning | Other Resources

-11th Delegate of LSC. (May 31 2021-October 16 2022, June 9 2023-August 21 2023, November 1 2023-)

WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent |

User avatar
Tigrisia
Envoy
 
Posts: 276
Founded: Dec 22, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Tigrisia » Mon Mar 18, 2024 5:38 am

The Ice States wrote:Any more comments?


Full support.

For the Delegation of the Federal Republic of Tigrisia at the World Assembly
Ambassador Thomas Salazar
Head of Mission

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3126
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Ice States » Sun Mar 24, 2024 6:02 pm

Bump. I would be quite interested in pursuing this at some point in the near future.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3126
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Ice States » Wed Apr 03, 2024 9:47 pm

This remains in progress!
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Nobith
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 6
Founded: Apr 01, 2024
Ex-Nation

Postby Nobith » Thu Apr 04, 2024 9:29 am

Nobith delegate Jane Shlem bounces her left leg. Unable to listen to the nonsense in the room. She sighs and taps on her ear-piece microphone. Autotranlating from the Nobith tongue:
"There are tyrants in the WA, marauder states, and fascists. The enact this bill would be to ostracize those nations."

Jane Shlem exhaules dropping her shoulders down. "There are states that are democratic, that love freedom, but believe freedom has a price. Then there are small states like Nobith. Nobith is a small city state binding herself to international security. To say that we should not attack member states will ostracize the former maurauder states. Then what will they do? Leave the WA and lose the regulations? Will we no longer have a forum to find some common ground? Now, what of the violent democrats and tyrannical terrorists who don't leave? Will they not forcibly integrate nations that leave because of such a bill?"

Jane Shlem takes off her glasses, "Nobith, as a non-violent city state cannot support this bill. This will remove the ability for police action against member states and drive a wedge between raiders and defenders. There will be no common forum if this were to pass and necessitate a bipolar multiversal order."

Jane shlem sits straight up.and looks across the large room filled with delegates.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3126
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Ice States » Thu Apr 04, 2024 11:48 am

Nobith wrote:Nobith delegate Jane Shlem bounces her left leg. Unable to listen to the nonsense in the room. She sighs and taps on her ear-piece microphone. Autotranlating from the Nobith tongue:
"There are tyrants in the WA, marauder states, and fascists. The enact this bill would be to ostracize those nations."

Jane Shlem exhaules dropping her shoulders down. "There are states that are democratic, that love freedom, but believe freedom has a price. Then there are small states like Nobith. Nobith is a small city state binding herself to international security. To say that we should not attack member states will ostracize the former maurauder states. Then what will they do? Leave the WA and lose the regulations? Will we no longer have a forum to find some common ground? Now, what of the violent democrats and tyrannical terrorists who don't leave? Will they not forcibly integrate nations that leave because of such a bill?"

Jane Shlem takes off her glasses, "Nobith, as a non-violent city state cannot support this bill. This will remove the ability for police action against member states and drive a wedge between raiders and defenders. There will be no common forum if this were to pass and necessitate a bipolar multiversal order."

Jane shlem sits straight up.and looks across the large room filled with delegates.

"Thank you for the commentary, Ambassador. I note that this is not the first resolution which would render a large number of tyrannical nations non-compliant; for example, the bans on genocide and war crimes. It also seems unlikely that large portions of nations would in fact leave the World Assembly in response to this; not only is there the benefit of universal recognition, but this very resolution would mean that member nation is now protected from war by other member nations."

"In any case, even if we accept that a large number of nations will indeed resign from the World Assembly should this pass, each war costs at least thousands, if not millions of lives, and if this resolution prevents a singular war of aggression, that is enough of a benefit to merit its passage."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.


Ooc: Welcome to the GA! As a note, if "raiders and defenders" refers to the NS practice of invading regions, as nice as it would be to ban that it does not fall under any GA resolution, as it concerns game mechanics.
Last edited by The Ice States on Thu Apr 04, 2024 11:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 408
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Thu Apr 04, 2024 1:49 pm

Norde Lot, stepping into the chambers, glances down at the resolution beforehand, before cocking an eyebrow. "Under the provisions of this resolution, could a non-member seek asylum within the World Assembly if a member-nation were to attack it, until such a point that the member-nation had adequately retreated its forces from the concerned nation, at which point they withdraw from the World Assembly? I foresee potentially disastrous consequences by outright prohibiting war between member nations, as if the aforementioned scenario were to be allowed, it gives members a distinct disadvantage when going to war even with a non-member."
Last edited by Bisofeyr on Thu Apr 04, 2024 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3126
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Ice States » Thu Apr 04, 2024 2:16 pm

Bisofeyr wrote:Norde Lot, stepping into the chambers, glances down at the resolution beforehand, before cocking an eyebrow. "Under the provisions of this resolution, could a non-member seek asylum within the World Assembly if a member-nation were to attack it, until such a point that the member-nation had adequately retreated its forces from the concerned nation, at which point they withdraw from the World Assembly? I foresee potentially disastrous consequences by outright prohibiting war between member nations, as if the aforementioned scenario were to be allowed, it gives members a distinct disadvantage when going to war even with a non-member."

"Could you clarify what disadvantage this would create? If the non-member attacks that member nation, this resolution does not restrict the member nation from responding or otherwise defending itself."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.
Factbooks · 46x World Assembly Author · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign · GA Stat Effects Data

Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, absent indication otherwise.
Please check out my roleplay thread The Battle of Glass Tears!
WA 101 Guides to GA authorship, campaigning, and more.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads